I was talking to a friend about the recent 400 ppm CO2 equivalent and we got to talking about where would be the best place to be to ride out global temp rises, flooding and other effects of climate change. Being the coward he was, he suggested moving to Canada and becoming a farmer I said that as east west of Pennsylvania would be more than enough to avoid the large storms that are predicted while not being in a drought or coastal flood prone area. Now that I'm looking at the precipitation and temperature change maps however, I'm beginning to wonder if Canada is the best solution after all. Where would the best places to relocate be, with short and long term climate change in mind?

In terms of avoiding adverse weather effects, anywhere that currently has decent rainfall, isn't too hot or too cold, is away from the coast (or is at least 50 feet above the high-tide mark), and doesn't currently see hurricanes should work out acceptably. Most places are only going to see relatively minor climate shifts.

If you're looking for someplace that's going to win big from climate change, the Canadian prairie is a good bet: a longer growing season will cause it to go from being marginal farmland to being prime farmland.

I am in Norway, and I wouldn't move an inch. Or a centimeter, preferrably (curse you non-conformers).

More rain = more hydroelectric power, higher temperature = maybe a decent summer once in a while and hopefully a lower electric bill in the winter. Its a win-win scenario. Keep on burnin! In fact, for great justice, keep burning the oil we are selling =P.

The only downside is that some pesky insects have started surviving the winter. Damn ticks. Other than that - its all good.

I actually read an article by a Norwegian, arguing that while a two degrees increase in temperature would be good for Norway, a five degrees increase would be better. Thus he advocated burning as much fossil fuel as possible.

Kind of an asocial attitude. He might be right that Norway would benefit, but it would screw much of the rest of the world.

While a warmer climate could eventually be beneficial to Canada, the transition period is not. The last 3 growing seasons have been horrible for the farmers around here. Winter ends earlier so plant start sprouting, then the temperatures go down (still warmer than normal) and the plants die. The weather and temperatures are also much less predictable so farmers have a harder time knowing what to plant.

Socrates wrote:The unexamined life is not worth living.

addams wrote:People! Can't live with them and we are not supposed to shoot 'em.

I have been saying for years that global warming is a vast Russo-Cana-Danish conspiracy to thaw the permafrost and extract the mineral wealth of Nunavut, Siberia, and Greenland. (Making them arable is just a side benefit.)

Tass wrote:I actually read an article by a Norwegian, arguing that while a two degrees increase in temperature would be good for Norway, a five degrees increase would be better. Thus he advocated burning as much fossil fuel as possible.

Kind of an asocial attitude. He might be right that Norway would benefit, but it would screw much of the rest of the world.

Norway's an uncertain case (as is the rest of Northern Europe). Depending on what happens to the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation, global warming could result in anything from a substantial temperature increase to a substantial decrease.

Carnildo wrote:Norway's an uncertain case (as is the rest of Northern Europe). Depending on what happens to the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation, global warming could result in anything from a substantial temperature increase to a substantial decrease.

And the equally probable - nothing at all. Which is the main reason I am a bit queasy towards the whole CO2 reduction plan. We don't know what will happen, what will happen if we prevent it or how we are sensibly going to prevent it. That is not a good investment strategy when you are discussing a serious portion of the worlds current output of value. Besides, isnt the best strategy for global warming to take steps to cool it down? Which we can - just release sulphur dioxide aerosol into the stratosphere.

But, fortunately, me and the greens have this in common; as a world community we need to increase the efficiency of our resource utilization. So - yay to recycling and sustainable power and no to rampant consumerism.

Tass wrote:Kind of an asocial attitude. He might be right that Norway would benefit, but it would screw much of the rest of the world.

Well, in this world everyone screws everyone for profit anyway. The whole continent of Africa is a monument to this. Jeez. It wouldn't be particularly asocial - seeing as the commonly accepted standard social behaviour is exploitation...

But I do see part of your point, the cynicism is just a part of my personality.

Not equally probable. It's almost certain that some kind of change will occur, even though we're not certain about the nature of said change. If we include factors other than global mean temperature, it's even more certain significant changes will occur in some variable or another. And really, rapid uncontrolled change is a bad idea in any ecosystem we're trying to live in. Just the prospect of keeping things more or less stable seems worthy of investing in.

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:

Tyndmyr wrote:

Роберт wrote:Sure, but at least they hit the intended target that time.

Well, if you shoot enough people, you're bound to get the right one eventually.

Qaanol wrote:I have been saying for years that global warming is a vast Russo-Cana-Danish conspiracy to thaw the permafrost and extract the mineral wealth of Nunavut, Siberia, and Greenland. (Making them arable is just a side benefit.)

For years.

Yup. We are talking big talk about renewables to keep you fooled, while burning tonnes of coal and fighting nuclear.

Qaanol wrote:I have been saying for years that global warming is a vast Russo-Cana-Danish conspiracy to thaw the permafrost and extract the mineral wealth of Nunavut, Siberia, and Greenland. (Making them arable is just a side benefit.)

For years.

And as a fool, I thought they were only interested in opening the North-West and the North-East passages.

More seriously, I can't find a source, but I remember reading he USSR considered using carbon powder to decrease the albedo of the ice floe and melt in a war scheme, and in the 50's, people actually considered artificially increasing world temperatures to make currently unusable land fertile.

If there is no answer, there is no question. If there is no solution, there is no problem.

Qaanol wrote:I have been saying for years that global warming is a vast Russo-Cana-Danish conspiracy to thaw the permafrost and extract the mineral wealth of Nunavut, Siberia, and Greenland. (Making them arable is just a side benefit.)

For years.

And as a fool, I thought they were only interested in opening the North-West and the North-East passages.

More seriously, I can't find a source, but I remember reading he USSR considered using carbon powder to decrease the albedo of the ice floe and melt in a war scheme, and in the 50's, people actually considered artificially increasing world temperatures to make currently unusable land fertile.

That's not the least eco-friendly idea, a century ago people were seriously considering damming and draining the Mediterranean.

Socrates wrote:The unexamined life is not worth living.

addams wrote:People! Can't live with them and we are not supposed to shoot 'em.

bouer wrote:That's not the least eco-friendly idea, a century ago people were seriously considering damming and draining the Mediterranean.

Really? Pumping out the combined volume of Donau, Tiber, Rhone and the Nile? And probably a bazillion large rivers I have forgotten... That sounds... rather insane. And cool. I guess you could diverge the Nile to the gulf, that would help. Of course it would put a dent in the world food production, but hey, everything must go.

Back on topic, the Mediterranean might be a good place. Humans have thrived there since we first migrated 40 000 years ago, surviving several significant shifts in climate. It doesn't have huge temperature extremes either way, it doesn't get hurricanes, lots of farmland, and the sea level probably won't rise as high as in other places.

Socrates wrote:The unexamined life is not worth living.

addams wrote:People! Can't live with them and we are not supposed to shoot 'em.